No Peace without Justice for Women

I have just returned from a two week trip abroad where I was reminded how much what we do here affects the rest of the world. Everywhere I went people wanted to talk about the election and what they saw at stake in it for them. I have always found the slogan “my country right or wrong” problematic because it seems that the very essence of my country is my right to determine its policies and to questions those I disagree with. I think my country is often wrong and I feel it is my right, indeed my duty, to challenge what I see as wrong and try to change it. So I have a bumper sticker on my car that says “Dissent is patriotic.”

Waiting for me upon my return was a documentary on the situation of women in Afghanistan. I have long known that Islamic fundamentalism of the most virulently sexist kind came to power in Afghanistan through the support of the United States. What I did not know was that this started during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. I am still brought up short by how much I want to believe that an apparently “good” man, one supportive of women’s rights, would not provide arms to men who made no secret of what they would do to women if they came to power. I didn’t expect this to be a problem for Ronald Reagan. Still, seeing the clip in the video of him going on about the heroic “freedom” fighters of Afghanistan, when these were the same men who threw acid in women’s faces if they appeared in public without the burqa, made me physically sick.

But perhaps not as sick as hearing President Bush, who has been no friend to women’s rights in this country, claim that freeing the women of Afghanistan was a major motive in his decision to invade. It is not at all clear to me that the situation for women in Afghanistan has improved much due to the U.S. presence there. Certainly this documentary questions Bush’s claim. In November Women Against War will host a program on the situation of women in Afghanistan. Our speaker is a woman who has herself just recently returned from Afghanistan where she is engaged in the struggle to gain basic human rights for women — educational, economic, medical. We will also be showing the documentary, Afghan Women: A History of Struggle. We hope that this program will generate engaged and informed action on our part to assist in this struggle.

But here is my basic point. All too often “freedom” does not include the rights of women. In fact history is full of “freedom fighters” whose rise to power did nothing to promote freedom for women and who in their personal lives were quite oppressive to women. Similarly, men may claim they have established peace, but there is no peace if women are being beaten anywhere. Women Against War holds as a central principle that peace has no meaning if it does not include ending violence against women and securing for women the fundamental human rights men accord to themselves. We work to make this a central principle of the larger peace movement in this country. I will consider my country “right” when it becomes a fundamental principle of our foreign policy as well.

Judith Fetterley

7 Responses

Foreign policy is basically geopolitical strategy. The strategic and economic interests of the US nearly always trump questions of human rights. This is why even Jimmy Carter lavished praise and aid on the “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, who were later to become al Qaeda, the Taliban and other jihadist groups. They were fighting the Soviet Union and the enemy of our enemy is our friend.

That being said, I support your goals and ideals. Not to beat a dead horse; it bears repeating that women have full educational, economic, political, medical and social rights in Israel. No, neither they nor us are perfect. Far from it. But “all the others are so much worse”, to coin a phrase.

Are you serious? The rise of Fundamentalist Islamic lunacy is the fault of Jimmy Carter and the U.S.? There’s very little I agree with Pres. Carter on, but suggesting he, or we, are in any way responsible for radical Islamic fundamentalism is complete and utter nonsense.

The U.S. has neither the capability or the authority to correct all the ills of the world in one fell swoop. The treatment of women in parts of this world, in certain cultures is disgraceful, but none of that treatment is anywhere near new. Centuries of culture have created these regretable practices and sane people understand these behaviors are simply, wrong, not to mention destructive and restrictive to the cultures that breed them.

However, in the same breath you condemn these archaic and backwards customs, you berate those who have actually taken steps to try and do something about changing them. It’s wonderful to wring your hands and complain about how terrible this behavior is, but well intentioned people have been wringing their hands and complaining for well over a thousand years, lamenting the behavior as they watch it continue.

As the saying goes, “All that is necessary for evil to florish, is for good men to do nothing”, emphasis on the reference to “do nothing”, and although wringing your hands and complaining is a notch above nothing, it’s not even close to being enough.

How is it that many of the same people who castigate the U.S. about butting into the business of others, are the same people who blame the U.S. for allowing all the ills of the world to continue? The presumption that any entity can clean up some really disgusting messes, without getting any dirt under it’s fingernails is nonsense.

Sorry, but the fact that the U.S. is incapable of reversing more than a thousand years of ill conceived culture overnight is not the problem, the problem is that too many well intentioned people have utterly ridiculous expectations that such a reversal will happen quickly or easily.

Far too many of these well intentioned purists scoff at the intention that taking action in Iraq, although difficult and expensive, would create a new idea in the Middle East that, if successful, would demonstrate that old cultures may not be as necessary as perceived. That a nation governed by voice of the people, rather than birth right, tribal succession or the dictates of religious zealots actually works a lot better when all of the citizens contribute to the overall success of a society.

A nation where women are given the opportunities to develop their potential and demonstrate their capabilities will realize the value of expanded opportunities, eventually. It may take a full generation, but it won’t take over a thousand years. The problem with archaic cultural ideas is that they can only florish when they are forced onto the citizenry and as long as those who insist on forcing these practices to carry forward, have the will and the ability to see that continues, meaningful change is virtually impossible.

Often starting change is like rolling a heavy stone, you need some strong help to get it started, but once it gets to rolling it’s impossible to stop. If calling attention to the presence of inequities is all you can do, fine, but please stop nit picking any efforts to actually do something to lower the presence of those inequities. Thinking you know what needs to be done is one thing, actually getting what needs to be done, completed, is an entirely different matter.

Expecting that this centuries old mess can ever be cleaned away without any difficulties, temporary setbacks and periodic missteps is worse than stupid. It’s counterproductive and only makes the cleanup take longer and be a lot more difficult.

Albert J. (comment #2)
I have never read a more revealing description of cultural imperialism and the misguided sense that our (very relatively new in the world) culture is somehow better and needs to be imposed on the entire world, whether the world welcomes it or not.

Here are just a few examples:
“Sorry, but the fact that the U.S. is incapable of reversing more than a thousand years of ill conceived culture overnight is not the problem, the problem is that too many well intentioned people have utterly ridiculous expectations that such a reversal will happen quickly or easily.”

“Far too many of these well intentioned purists scoff at the intention that taking action in Iraq, although difficult and expensive, would create a new idea in the Middle East that, if successful, would demonstrate that old cultures may not be as necessary as perceived. That a nation governed by voice of the people, rather than birth right, tribal succession or the dictates of religious zealots actually works a lot better when all of the citizens contribute to the overall success of a society.”

Yes there are abuses of women in many Muslim countries, chief among them our great “ally” Saudi Arabia, but that doesn’t mean that we can negate ancient, complex, diverse, beautiful and historically important cultures and try to recreate some version of our own (which has very savage, flawed and sexist roots indeed.) If you read some history you’ll find that Iraq had a culture of amazing scientific and mathematical contributions, art, literature and social complexity long before the earliest ancestors of the first colonists to reach North America
shores and exterminate and enslave the people whom they found there.

It’s attitudes like yours (and unfortunately many in positions of power in our nation) that allow for killing as a first resort and for the feeling that one group needs to subdue another and wipe out their history (as was attempted by the looting of the National Museum in Iraq and the destruction of the library as well.)

As women and peace makers we deplore the violence against women and the subordination of women everywhere. As you may have noticed it currently occurs right here in our own nation, but we don’t condone the impostion of our way of doing things on others at the point of guns, a predator drones, depleted uranium weapons, bombs, home invasions, assassinations, or wholesale destruction of infrastructure and basic survival that makes refugees of 5.5 million people.

Women in other nations struggling for greater freedom of expression and greater personal safety tell us time and time again that the best way for people in the United States to support them is to listen to them, amplify their stories and provide material and communication support. They also say, “don’t try to impose your own ideas of what we need.” Interference by outside groups or by foreign governments just gives repressive governments an excuse to crack down harder on the civil and human rights of dissenters and to resist change.

When I first read your comment I hoped that it was satire and a parody of the attitude that I’ve described. I wanted to believe that you wrote it as a “devil’s advocate” to stimulate further discussion. After re-reading it and also noticing the name calling in the first couple of sentences, I sadly had to conclude that you were serious.

By the way, that same attitude of superiority and knowing what was best for other “inferior” people was what allowed us to practice slavery and to see women and children as the “property” of men.
**(More on Gunga Dan’s comment in a second comment so watch this space!)**

Unless one or more of your names is a transgendered pseudonym, it’s fascinating that all three of the comments about Judith’s article focusing on Justice for Women were written by men ).
I’d like to invite some women readers to comment on these important issues as well. Wonder if only men are currently reading our blog or if only men write responses.

The article raises a very important point about freedom summed up in the phrase “We can’t be free ’til everybody else is.”

The Taliban’s cruel and extreme interpretation of Shurieya law in Afghanistan is a disturbing and dramatic example.
But, in the interest of discourging the alarming rise of anti-Islamic sentiment and actions in the United States, I really wish that there had been more mention of the lack of equality for women in other cultures in addition to Islam. Even that isn’t accurate since the expressions of any religious framework vary from nation to nation and even region to region depending on geography, ethnicity, history and other factors.

The truth is that we have child “brides” in Christian and Mormon enclaves (again only mentioning the most extreme and radical expressions of these religious groups. We have clergy sexual abuse of women and children. We have abuse and murder of Hindu brides in India to claim dowries. We have rape and murder of nuns in Tibet, and the killing of girl babies in parts of the world where only sons are valued or where only one child per family is allowed.

Slavery and sexual trafficking of women and children occurs all over the world, in every religious and cultural domain, as does rape and violence against women.

In the occupied territories and in the cities and countrysides of Israel, women are not given equality of opportunity in education, work opportunities, health care, safety, ability to care for their families, unhindered mobility, respect, rights to own property or to meet basic survival needs, if they happen to be Palestinian women, rather than Jewish women, even if they are citizens of Israel.

Here in the United States, aside from the even more disturbing examples, women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work. They still hit barriers to promotion in many fields of employment, although there has been much progress. In our government, women are a very small minority of our leaders although we are the majority of the population. I agree that overall, if they are Jewish, women have greater rights in Israel and in some Latin American countries as well where part of the expression of “freedom” includes those rights.

Gunga Dan,
I very much admire your talent with flip phrases. I’ve observed your practice of this art on other political blogs as well as on our blog.
At first read, the humor and not the cynicism is what the reader percieves.

It would be rash to let you get away with the use of the phrase ” Protect Islamic property rights…” While witty on one level it encourages the singling out and bashing of one group and allows us to continue feeling somehow “superior” and therefore justified in using violence and agression—including extra judicial executions and bombing of civilians while overlooking the serious problems in our own system of government.

You haven’t yet written “Protect Goldman Sachs…”
Let others loose their homes, their pensions, their health care, educational opportunities, their chances to develop green energy, and their jobs.

Obviously, I don’t have your particular gift of brevity. Right now my mind and feelings are racing on to start a new paragraph about how there can be no peace while there is such poverty for so many people, and excessive wealth for the very few.

I’d like to know more about the heart and values behind that “wicked keyboard” of yours. Or maybe not?!?

Albert J., I don’t think the implication is that Jimmy Carter caused the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. There are many causes or contributing factors as to why this version of Islam has caught on like wildfire in parts of the Muslim world. However, it has often proved disastrous to make common cause and support people with dangerous philosophies and agendas of their own. To follow the dictate that the enemy of our enemy is our friend blindly leads down many foolish paths.

We did not cause Islamic fundamentalism, but we did give aid and comfort in ways that strengthened them in their worst tendencies.
Our choices to support war lords and fundmentalist jihadists in order to cause trouble for Russia has led to some very bad results. First of all, it was Afghanis who invited the Soviets in to their country in the first place. These Afghanis were very bad at reforms and they themselves made many errors in trying to free women from oppressive tribal customs and used bad tactics in trying to bring about economic reform for the poor of Afghanistan. The people in the tribal areas revolted against the government in Kabul so Russia and those government leaders thought they could make common cause together and put down the revolt. The US continually made matters worse by meddling. It is quite likely that the Soviet Union would have fallen (as it finally did) from overextending its empire and draining its coffers dry by fighting in Afghanistan even without US intervention. It is quite likely that the Afghani people would have overthrown their unpopular Communist government and driven out the Soviets on their own, eventually, without US help. The help that the US sent strengthened the dangerous elements, especially the warlords, while giving a lot of power and prestige to the fundamentalist mujahideen. After meddling, then promising all kinds of help to a fledgling new Afghani government, the US abandoned the country. It needed a tremendous amount of economic assistance, technical aid, and coaching in better government practices. In the vacuum, with no such help, the war lords came running and robbed and exploited and killed and raped, each to his own advantage. Then the Taliban, also having been nurtured by the inspiration of the mujahideen during exile in Pakistan and influenced by the money from the Saudi fundamentalists that funded so many madrassas, told the people of Afghanistan two things: first, we will protect you from lawlessness and chaos in civil society and second, we can show you the way to the traditional values you are comfortable with. People did not understand the extremes this would involve, but they dearly wanted security from bandits and tribal fighting. The Taliban were at least organized and capable of maintaining order and keeping the economy from sinking any further into disaster.

The US did not create the Taliban nor their extreme views but in several ways, the US helped make the conditions right for a Taliban takeover. Soon after that takeover, women in Afghanistan asked women in the US to ask their government to help them. Men were oppressed also, but the situation for women was truly dire. Our government did not do anything in the way of sanctions or take serious diplomatic steps to change the policies of the Taliban. In fact, prior to 9/11, we actively sought trade agreements that would give the US advantages in controlling the flow of oil and gas across Afghan lands. For the sake of corporate advantage, we were happy to do business with the Taliban.

When we attacked we did not attack to free anybody. We attacked out of revenge and out of a desire to get control of territory beneficial to US control of resources. In this way, Michael is basically right. Trying to bully people into letting the US have as much share as it wants of the world’s resources, particularly energy resources, trumps human rights every time. We use the idea of “freeing the oppressed” as a cover for our aggression, usually after the fact. And once in Afghanistan, our misguided aims blinded us to what would be effective in building a more progressive country. The mistakes we have made there are too long to list here. Security is deteriorating, women have made very little progress, and opium addiction in that country and in surrounding countries has grown immensely. People are losing hope and turning back to the certainty and familiarity of the Taliban.

More voices are now pointing out that you can’t effectively fight terrorists, violent outlaw renegades, international criminals like Al Qaeda by attacking whole countries and increasing their miseries. A highly efficient interntional police force with effective CIA participation can get the job done without creating too many new problems along the way. In order to see this, the American people may need to look at why we are so greedy, so blind to the debt we keep incurring, so willing to depend on an over-extended and abused volunteer military to get our way. Why do we focus on rising expectations of more and more material comforts while our economy is dieing and our freedoms at home are threatened by power hungry presidents and a weak Congress. One of the recent voices speaking loud and clear about this is Andrew Bacevich, the conservative military history professor at Boston University. He retired from a long military career and served in Viet Nam. Please look up on the Internet his appearance on last week’s Bill Moyer’s Journal. The whole show is on video and in transcript form.

Riiigggggghttt, Mickie Lynn. Only Jewish women have rights in Israel. All religions beat and kill women. The big bad United States is to blame for all the evils of the world. Life was so much better thousands of years ago. Jews in Iran, Yemen and Syria are soooooo well-treated.

I am very glad I do not live on the planet that your mind occupies.

But hey, I’m an evil man, so my opinion doesn’t matter, does it.

By the way, “loose” is the opposite of tight. The proper spelling is “lose”.

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.

Women Against War:Supporting non-military ways of solving conflictsAbout us